The myth of Persecution?

[Lost_Wanderer]

Who’s “fearing” her ideas? Not me. I just think (as far as I can tell from the article) that they’re a manifestation of a lost faith or one in process of being lost. If you’ve not noticed the concerted effort to “demythologize” the faith in the last 50 years all I can say to you is “good luck.”

While I admit to being skeptical at first, there is a lot to agree with in her reasons. Her facts may be suspect but there’s no denying that martyrdom mentalities in this day and age have been proven both counterproductive and unhealthy for sending a message (Christian or otherwise).

The real issue should be her talk of dialogue and promoting this ‘culture warrior’ thing. It sounds a bit like liberal naivety.

 

[manualman]

Let’s just say that I recognize the method. I recall quite distinctly reading the work of scholars years ago who had lost their faith in the same manner.

For example, there was an essay on Abraham and Isaac. The academic pontificated that of course GOD didn’t tell Abraham to sacrifice his son. That’s just pious mythology, such things don’t really happen as we enlightened modern folk well know! What really must have happened is that Abraham became alarmed at the direction of Isaac’s life, was afraid that he’d be unfaithful to the dogmas Abraham had instructed him in and concluded via his own anger and indignation that God must want him to kill Isaac and offer him as a sacrifice. And of course God didn’t ACTUALLY send an angel to stop him. Really, such childish superstitions are for a different era. Abraham was simply halted in his intention by noticing the ram caught in the thicket. After all, isn’t that miracle enough…

Or this one: Jesus didn’t REALLY multiply the fishes and loaves. We all know about the laws of conservation of mass by now, don’t we? The REAL miracle that happened that day was that Jesus opened the hearts of people that were fearful and mistrusting of each other so that they shared the food that they each had secretly hidden in their cloaks and bags…

It’s the same nonsense approach based on lack of faith. Oh,no. People can’t really be willing to lay down their very lives for Christ. That’s simply not believeable. It must be the invention of pious followers that came later… If witnesses in the early church testify to the martyrdom of countless saints, Im taking THEIR word for it, not some pointy headed academic 2,000 years after the fact who thinks she knows better. Sheesh.

The really galling thing is that you don’t need to go back 2,000 years to find governments and powers that feel threatened by the faith to the point of killing believers. Just ask people in China, North Africa, the Middle East, India, Pakistan… But no, of course the Romans didn’t really persecute christians.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Let’s just say that I recognize the method. I recall quite distinctly reading the work of scholars years ago who had lost their faith in the same manner.

We cannot let statements like this cloud us from the facts. The danger of the martyrdom mentality continues to present itself even in the 21st century. (Remember 9/11?)

It’s the same nonsense approach based on lack of faith. Oh,no.

You are making the really sore mistake of confusing apples and oranges. Skeptics towards Jesus’ miracles is one thing. People being killed for their faith is an entirely different in that the fact science can’t disprove somebody died via thrown to the lions.

Unless you’re telling me that humans back then were made of rocks, getting killed was quite easy during those less advanced times.

 

[Crude]

The really galling thing is that you don’t need to go back 2,000 years to find governments and powers that feel threatened by the faith to the point of killing believers. Just ask people in China, North Africa, the Middle East, India, Pakistan… But no, of course the Romans didn’t really persecute christians.

Yes. We have, in the modern day, all manner of examples of Christians being killed and persecuted. In recent history we have examples of systematic secular persecution, taking the form of everything from outright killing to bulldozing churches to otherwise.

I have not read this book, so I won’t comment on its contents. I will make a few notes.

“Peer-reviewed” doesn’t mean all that much, nor does the fact that a professor wrote a book. Peer-review is not a stamp of quality or cogency of argument (and a failure of peer review does not mean an argument is bad), and there are plenty of professors who let their work be guided primarily by their own sympathies.

Arguing whether such and such group was “systematically persecuted” or “killed for their faith” inevitably leads - when one side really wants to push the argument - into a murky area. If a disaster occurs and political pressure is on a leader, and he lays the blame (wrongfully) on unpopular group X, rounding up and killing a few of them to satisfy the public, are group X martyrs? You can hedge and say ‘Well, they didn’t die because they were X per se. They died because they were a convenient scapegoat that the leader needed, and it so happened that the available scapegoat was X.’

You can play this kind of game ad nauseum. If someone would like to quote specific arguments given from the book, we can evaluate them. I strongly suspect we’re going to see a lot of technical hedging on what constitutes a persecution, what constitutes ‘killing someone because they are Christian’, what constitutes ‘systematic persecution’ etc. (For example, if every now and then there’s a pogrom and a whole bunch of jews are killed in state X, but - other than this atmosphere of fear - there’s no official decree to ‘go kill the jews’, are jews being systematically persecuted and martyred? Depends on who you ask.)

 

[manualman]

1. We cannot let statements like this cloud us from the facts. The danger of the martyrdom mentality continues to present itself even in the 21st century. (Remember 9/11?)
2. You are making the really sore mistake of confusing apples and oranges. Skeptics towards Jesus’ miracles is one thing. People being killed for their faith is an entirely different in that the fact science can’t disprove somebody died via thrown to the lions.

Unless you’re telling me that humans back then were made of rocks, getting killed was quite easy during those less advanced times.

1. Being wary of an unwarranted martyrdom mentality is one thing. Concluding (as the author seems to) that since spoiled 21st century Americans living in a rapidly de-christianizing culture are whining about being ‘persecuted’ then therefore, the early christian martyrdom accounts are probably substantially exaggerated or made up is quite another thing.
2. This isn’t a coherent objection. What are you even saying? By definition, science cannot prove or disprove the fact that Jesus multiplied the fishes and loaves because science requires experiments that can be duplicated. None of us were there, so we are left with the testimony of those who were - just like that which affirms the martyrdom of the early christians.

Another objection you often hear from scholars of this sort is the allegation that certain parts of the gospels were later additions. For example, the gospel excerpts in which Jesus tells his listeners that the temple (his very body) would be destroyed and then restored on the third day. Such scholars have repeatedly classified this part of the gospel as an “inauthentic” later addition since is clearly prefaces the resurrection and Jesus. Since any fool knows that nobody can tell the future, this clearly was added on after the fact. I’m not even joking, this is what passes for reasoning in much of academia these days. They come to the table with disbelief in their preconceptions and then reason from those preconceptions to “disprove” Tradition. It’s pure circular reasoning.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

1. Being wary of an unwarranted martyrdom mentality is one thing. Concluding (as the author seems to) that since spoiled 21st century Americans living in a rapidly de-christianizing culture are whining about being ‘persecuted’ then therefore, the early christian martyrdom accounts are probably substantially exaggerated or made up is quite another thing.

No it is not. Hence, the author’s actual agenda. If finding out the truth about ancient Christian martyrs cripples the corruption of martyrdom we have today, then by all means, I would learn more. We need to kill that corruption at the source and that means we have to find out what really happened.

1. This isn’t a coherent objection. What are you even saying? By definition, science cannot prove or disprove the fact that Jesus multiplied the fishes and loaves because science requires experiments that can be duplicated. None of us were there, so we are left with the testimony of those who were - just like that which affirms the martyrdom of the early christians.

But that’s exactly my point. Skeptics try to disprove such things because they think it’s just impossible as far as science is concerned. With history, it’s different. It doesn’t rely on duplicating something to prove something is true or not. It relies on studying the culture of the period. It looks to actual laws that were in place. The method of proving things when it comes to history is no longer “Is it possible?” but “Did it really happen?” (Hence, it’s pointless to wonder if someone could have been executed via throwing to the lions. Lions can kill. No question there. The real question is DID. IT. HAPPEN?)

See, it is easy to dismiss science skeptics because the limits of proving via a duplication of an event is beyond its reach (most of the time anyways). You can’t say the same with history. When someone makes a claim and then has the necessary political, economic, and cultural pieces of proof, you have to play that game with them. You can’t just dismiss them on the count of limitations that are exclusive to their science counterparts.

 

[manualman]

I think you’re being a bit naive. Your argument suggests that you think that the Roman world of 2,000 years ago was not fundamentally different than our own. But it was. Obviously, they had no electronic data storage, they lacked printing technology and even paper as we know it wasn’t in use. Written records were for the extraordinary, not the ordinary. One can use archeological tools and methods to prove the existence of a king or a major battle or the location of a city. One really can NOT use them to verify or “disprove” biblical or extra-biblical contemporary accounts of martyrdom of early believers when christianity was considered merely one of dozens of competing curiosity religions by the Roman authorities. They simply wouldn’t have warranted documentation, but that hardly proves that they didn’t happen.

Put it another way. Can you think of a conflict you may have had with a kid in grade school? Now imagine trying to “prove” that it happened 70 years later when you are the last surviving member of that class against a “historian” who wasn’t there, but claims that it never happened. That’s what’s happening here.

 

[Crude]

To see some of the flaws of Moss’ book, I recommend this partial investigation.

It looks pretty much like what I expected: Moss is not disputing the Christians were matyred. She’s getting very, very vague with what constitutes persecution.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I think you’re being a bit naive. Your argument suggests that you think that the Roman world of 2,000 years ago was not fundamentally different than our own.

Oh no, I am far from naive. In fact, what you’re saying is just besides the point. The field of history demands that you play by its rules. Science isn’t as clear (which you yourself have aptly demonstrated). We know that we can’t always have a clear picture of the past. But ironically, that is the very reason why we oughta be wary of any historical claim especially when it’s starting to get used by a dangerous new form of the persecution complex.

I like Crude’s link though. I think we’d all fare better if we watch this unfold. This could just be the beginning of another academic back-and-forth so let’s just sit back and watch.

 

[Crude]

Oh no, I am far from naive. In fact, what you’re saying is just besides the point. The field of history demands that you play by its rules. Science isn’t as clear (which you yourself have aptly demonstrated). We know that we can’t always have a clear picture of the past. But ironically, that is the very reason why we oughta be wary of any historical claim especially when it’s starting to get used by a dangerous new form of the persecution complex.

I like Crude’s link though. I think we’d all fare better if we watch this unfold. This could just be the beginning of another academic back-and-forth so let’s just sit back and watch.

I’m glad you like the link. But, I don’t think that this is ‘a dangerous new form of persecution complex’.

Frankly, we live in a world where, in the past century, Christians have been killed en masse in various countries (the Soviet revolutions), persecuted in others (Arabic countries), with rights stripped away in still others (See german homeschooling laws, the HHS mandate, etc.)

What’s more, Moss looks like she’s aiding and abetting some kinds of persecution by engaging in shady denialism about past persecution. Think of how this looks from the other side of things.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I’m glad you like the link. But, I don’t think that this is ‘a dangerous new form of persecution complex’.

Frankly, we live in a world where, in the past century, Christians have been killed en masse in various countries (the Soviet revolutions), persecuted in others (Arabic countries), with rights stripped away in still others (See german homeschooling laws, the HHS mandate, etc.)

What’s more, Moss looks like she’s aiding and abetting some kinds of persecution by engaging in shady denialism about past persecution. Think of how this looks from the other side of things.

All of this boils down to proof, precious proof now if you insist that these justify playing the victim card. I’ve seen people twist the martyrdom mentality in the most irrational and exaggerated form.

It does not spread the word. It’s just puts a target on our heads plus it makes us out as demonizers of those outside the faith. Does that sound like the best way to evangelize? Troll enough of your enemies with whiny victim stories that may not have actually been true? I’ve already seen the LGBT movement play this card. If we’re going to insist, we have to at least play it right: with facts.

 

[Ismael]

If anyone is interested, here is an interview with Dr. Moss in which she answers questions about her book.

You call yourself a ‘man of coubt’ but you make veiled accuses at the church in your posts without checking the facts.

Dr. Moss states herself in her interview:

To those readers who might struggle with this book, I would say that you can appreciate the martyrs without subscribing to the view that Christians were, are, and always have been persecuted.

Well no one that Christians in the first centuries were persecuted unremittently.

Also as you discovered yourself, the Church itself doubts SOME of the accounts as unrealiable and being perhaps emballished.

This does NOT mean there was no persecution, NOR that the persecution of Christians by Romans were ‘unsignificant’ in anyway.

I think Moss wants to go against those Christians who like ‘to play the vicitim’.

On the other hand the Church IS always persecuted, not always violently and not always by non-Chrisitans or non Catholics.

In this case “persecution” is meant in a broad sense.

As ‘violente persecutions’ go, well today there are a LOT going on (read the news regardin Christians in Sudan or India!)… but here as well the persecution is not ‘universal’, i’,e, like in ancient Rome it’s localized.

Like a house built upon sand, faith based upon fabrication and exaggeration isn’t much of an asset, IMO.

To bad for you Christianity is not built on how many martirs there are.
Keep attacking those straw man!

 

[Ismael]

All of this boils down to proof, precious proof now if you insist that these justify playing the victim card. I’ve seen people twist the martyrdom mentality in the most irrational and exaggerated form.

True enough.
Persecution 2000 years ago is no good argument for a current debate.

Regarding ‘proof’ I think there is more than overwhelming evidence of the Christian Martys…

The Church itself has criticized and doubted SOME stories… some decades ago several “Saints” that appeared in the Roman martyrologue were ‘dismissed’ (well not exactly dismissed as such but removed from the official list of saints I think) since the sources for their martydom were doubtful.

So really Dr. Moss kind of discovered hot water and repackaged with a ‘provocative’ and deceitful title.

That’s what ticks me off the most: Dr. Moss seems to assert, at least in the title of the book, there was no persecutoion but only a few incidents… but most other historians, if not all would strongly disagree I think.

 

[Nullasalus]

All of this boils down to proof, precious proof now if you insist that these justify playing the victim card. I’ve seen people twist the martyrdom mentality in the most irrational and exaggerated form.

No doubt. But current excesses don’t excuse past acts, and sometimes the person crying ‘martyr’ is telling the truth.

We live in a world where Christians are being persecuted actively in a lot of countries - kill and their cathedrals stormed in Egypt. Thrown into prisons in North Korea. Forced underground in China. In America, yes, I do think the HHS rules are persecution. I think the recent media silence on Kermit Gosnell is arguably another instance of it - can’t let those religious people be seen to have a point, can we?

It does not spread the word. It’s just puts a target on our heads plus it makes us out as demonizers of those outside the faith. Does that sound like the best way to evangelize? Troll enough of your enemies with whiny victim stories that may not have actually been true? I’ve already seen the LGBT movement play this card. If we’re going to insist, we have to at least play it right: with facts.

Sometimes, ‘demonization’ is accurate. Kermit Gosnell is being demonized. His unwitting supporters are being demonized. I think that’s correct.

As for the LGBT, in terms of practical effect, that’s a bad example. The LGBT movement now has the majority of the country on their side. They had a turnaround on this in the space of five years.

I agree we should use facts. I agree we should be reasonable. But sometimes outrage is justifiable, and let’s not tell ourselves that facts change minds. They rarely do.

 

[manualman]

Less than a month later doesn’t count as creating a “zombie thread” does it?

Here’s an excellent criticism of the content and mindset behind the book by somebody rather smarter than myself.

firstthings.com/article/2013/04/unmythical-martyrs

 

[irom]

also good one here

 

[Gordon_Sims]

I think this is part of an overall effort by liberals to cover up and discredit past persecution of Christians in order to aid their current agenda by discrediting any connection between current persecution of Christians with historical persecution. Just the other day I read a Wikipedia article that claimed that there are absolutely no documented reports of Christian martyrdom at the hands of the Romans.

The first article I read about this book fairly stated that Moss gave that as one of her reasons for writing the book. It also claimed that one of her points was that a lot of the early Christians were killed because they refused to burn incense in honor of the emperor, not for religious reasons (it leaves out the fact that burning incense to honor the emperor was a religious practice). The article also claimed that everyone was being slaughtered back then, so the Christians weren’t anything special. I think I could glean about as much meaning and insight from this book as I could from the funny papers.